The Reformation was a move away from reason, not towards it

How can we help Islam reform when so many western commentators do not understand Christianity?

Sir Simon Jenkins, who has form as an polemicist against the Church, has turned his attention towards contemporary Islam in his latest article over at the Guardian. Islam is something about which I know not very much, so I am not going to consider the substance of the argument. But there are one or two things about Christianity and religion in general that Sir Simon mentions which require comment.

First of all, this use of the phrase “Muslim reformation”. Jenkins put the phrase in inverted commas, which is noteworthy, but even in inverted commas, this is a phrase that strikes me as useless at best or deeply misleading at worst.

Western Christendom underwent what is called the Reformation in the sixteenth century. But this movement was by no means a shift towards liberalism, peace or democracy; Martin Luther strongly supported the German princes in their efforts to put down peasants’ revolts; and the Lutheran princes were unflinching in dealing with various radicals such as the Anabaptists. But above all, the Reformation was not a movement towards rationality and enlightenment: one of Luther’s rallying cries was Los mit Aristoteles! – away with Aristotle! The emphasis was on sola scriptura (a deeply irrational principle, to my mind) and away from the use of reason in theology and the great rational discourse of Aquinas and the other Medieval Schoolmen. The Reformation was an obscurantist movement.

If we bear this in mind, it is clear that the Islamic world has already had several reformations of one type and another, the most recent of which is Wahhabism, which continues to this day to destroy shrines in Arabia, just as once the iconoclasts of Europe once laid waste much of our artistic heritage. Wahhabism sees itself as the most pure understanding of Islam, and this is at the heart of their quarrel with the Shia, who they see as anything but pure; indeed there are many accretions to Shia Islam that remind one of Christianity; or are these accretions? Or is it that Shia Islam is the real Islam, the Islam as it was practiced in the early years of the faith? I have no idea if this is true or not, but it could be.

So it is my contention that Sir Simon Jenkins, and others, use the term “Islamic reformation” without any understanding of what the Reformation was all about. We have the ironic spectacle then of people from Europe telling Muslims what is good for them, while not understanding Christianity, let alone Islam.

The second thing that is worthy of comment is found in this almost throwaway phrase: “… evolving, like Christianity, to respect a division between church and state”. This comment is so wrong and at so many levels. The concept of secular and sacred as distinct realms is not an innovation in Christianity, it is rather something that is there from the beginning. It is found on the lips of Jesus Himself. Mark 12:17, with its words about rendering to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, is surely the foundational text here. The implication that the Church somehow learned to “respect” the State shows an ignorance of history and theology, and is deeply dismissive of Catholic tradition.

I am not sure what exactly Sir Simon Jenkins is arguing about Jihad and Islam in this piece, but whatever it is, his grasp of Christinaity seems shaky.

TieHard can’t be Catholic.
I am not aware of any Catholic teaching that Henry VIII returned to the Catholic Faith.
Unfortunately everyone who posts on a Catholic media site, is not Catholic.
There are some non-Catholic trolls spreading misinformation.

MIKE

Any needed correction of our human leaders within the Church, means Catholics working within the Church, not leaving and starting our own religion.
(We must remember that even St. Peter sinned, but repented.)

Saintly reformers have always worked within the Church. St Catherine of Sienna who also became a Doctor of the Church, comes to mind, advocating reform of the clergy and advising people that repentance and renewal could be done through the total love for God.

Code of Canon Law: Under – ‘Obligations and Rights of ALL the Christian Faithful’
Can “212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty
to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church
and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful,
without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals,
with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. “

TieHard

St Michael preserve us

TieHard

No the Church of England really took hold either with Elizabeth 1 or her brother who reigned a short while as I understand it. It was a messy time and events unravelled without any planning with Henry. Earlier in his life the Pope gave Henry the title defender of the faith… Henry always saw himself as a Catholic he just disputed the popes authority over him or his kingdom. For Henry it was a legal dispute not theological. In the tradition of Constantine and Charlamagne the emperors have always seen themselves as the ultimate authority in the Church and this has often caused conflict with the popes. He robbed the monasteries of their power and land etc the real destruction of the Church came later after his death and yes he caused the events but his children made the final break as while he was still alive it could have gone either way and there might have been reconciliation .. They were much worse and the torturing and murder of Catholics happened under them. You must be from the US to think the queen mother who died a few years ago is or ever was head of CHurch of England. Queen mother is the mother of the Queen- no power. Like Obamas mother.
This is not my period of history so perhaps one of the historians can answer you I have just grown up as a Lancashire Catholic and the blood of our local martyrs still echoes here and in a way that we look for truth nothing else will do. Insults mean nothing ( below you seem to be rather insulting) if you pray as often as you speak you will grow as a Catholic and charity will let people know you as a Catholic. God bless you and lead you

Rosemary

Perhaps a better word for Protestantism would be that it is a form of nihilism? It has dissipated into a stripped down version of Christianity that it saw as something purer than what Rome was, and in the process became little more than an ideology for virtuous living. How can we reach out to that orientation of faith? How can we reach out to tens of thousands of protestant congregations that, even among themselves, agree on very little? Perhaps if our separated brothers and sisters read the Cathechism (or even parts of it), there will at least be a baseline for discussion. Until then, we would just be Babeling with each other.

tolpuddle1

Regarding the English Reformation – the English people had a chance to rally to the Catholic flag under Mary Tudor; in general they didn’t. Henry and Elizabeth, though tyrannical and bloody, were nevertheless shrewd and cautious politicians, who were careful not to step much ahead of public opinion; though Protestantism was fortunate in having the support of London and the English heartland up from the Channel to the East Midlands, whereas Catholic support was tucked far away, mainly “Up North.”

The consensus seems to be that when Elizabeth acceded in 1558, England was one-third Catholic, one-third Protestant, one-third undecided. But the Protestants won because they were fervently Protestant, whereas the Catholics – for all their love and reverence for the Old Religion – were on the whole not; their love of Catholicism was affection and conservatism, not fervent religious faith. Eamonn Duffy’s study of a parish in Devon rather bears this out; the Catholics went along with Elizabeth’s policy – with much heart-burning, regret and backward looks – but obediently nonetheless. Certainly, they failed to pass on their Catholic faith, even their Catholic sentiment, to their children and grandchildren.

And so, as Eamonn Duffy says, England became another place, another country.

theroadmaster

While Henry and Elizabeth may have acted in a “shrewd”and calculating manner to avoid some of the worse excesses of the religious wars in Europe, a very heavy price was paid regarding the religious patrimony of England. A 1000 years worth of priceless Catholic heritage was plundered and vandalized by self seeking followers of the “new” religion in an attempt to obliterate it(Catholic heritage) from the face of the earth rather like the efforts of the revolutionaries of the French Revolution to wipe out the memory of the Catholic Christian Faith in France during the late 18th century. In effect England became de-sacralized but certain heroic families managed to hold on to the “Old Faith” despite the threat of “fire sword or dungeon” and are still doing so this present day. The Catholic Faith has experienced peaks and troughs in relation to it’s fortunes but it has survived tenaciously to this day and will continue to do so.

kentgeordie

You are utterly mistaken. The protestants won because the rich and powerful got their hands on Catholic loot, and were prepared to take whatever steps were necessary to hang on to it.
It is preposterous to suggest that England turned protestant due to the fervour of a tiny minority of committed protestants. Left to their own devices the people of England would have held to the faith of their fathers.
Had Mary lived and Elizabeth died, the ‘reformation’ would have been undone by 1600.

Guest

Perhaps both Henry VIII and Elizabeth 1 did show some degree of “shrewdness” and calculation to avoid some of the worst excess of the wars of religion in Europe, but their “reformation” came at the expense of 1000 years of Catholic heritage. From a cultural and religious point of view, a nation’s priceless patrimony was laid waste by the opportunistic followers of the “new” religion. Like the French revolutionaries, they thought that they could put the clock back to year zero and instill a memory loss concerning England’s integral links to the Holy See for a millennium. But some brave families kept the burning light of the “Old Faith” alive and with the help of previous waves of emigration that Faith is still alive and vibrant today.

theroadmaster

Your comments are reminiscent of the Donatist heresy which originated from a bishop in Africa during the 4th century A.D.i.e. that the effectiveness of a sacrament depended on the moral character of the officiating priest or bishop. This was rigorously opposed by and ultimately defeated by the Church The problem with this heresy was that none of us are morally pure and it restricts the options for God to work only through those with the mostly perfectly formed characters. You seem to emphasis the small percentage of pedophiles found among the global Catholic clerical ranks(admittedly this is 2% too many). Do you not think that they exist in equal or greater numbers among other Faiths like Islam, protestant groups, Buddhism or Judaism. Unbiased studies have found that they do but this of course may not be too your liking. This does not excuse the scandals in Catholic clerical ranks but just gives this plague some context. We are currently seeing the cover-ups brought to light concerning the appalling charges of sex-abuse laid against Establishment figures in Britain in past years and it has reached into the corridors of power in Westminster. It is an terrible evil wherever it occurs and must be exposed.

theroadmaster

Latin is the Lingua Franca of the Catholic Church and was the language of choice for many of the civilized peoples of Europe to encode law, literature and music. Your ignorant dismissal of it as ” a dead and irrelevant shop talk language” betrays a philistinism which is hard to credit.

tolpuddle1

I defend nothing of what Henry or Elizabeth did, merely noting that it was based on the (correct) calculation that English Catholicism – after the long “medieval peace” – was in most cases more a matter of sentiment than real faith and could thus be dealt with brutally, especially as much of the country had become Protestant, often fanatically so.

Though the low point of English Catholicism was in the 18th century, when indifference destroyed many parts of it that the Tudors hadn’t managed to reach.

But this is historical debate – Catholicism today depends on God and whether, and to what extent, we co-operate with Him.

tolpuddle1

In most parts of England, there was no outcry from any class of society – not even a squeak – against the suppression of the monasteries. London and most of Eastern England quickly became fervently Protestant and by Elizabeth’s accession, Protestants were a large wedge of the population.

As Blessed John Henry Newman wrote, Ireland remained Catholic because the Irish laity proved worthy of defending the faith (hence Elizabeth Tudor didn’t dare to “force their consciences”), whereas England became Protestant because the Catholic laity proved very unequal to their duty.

The people of England regained Catholic freedom under Mary Tudor, but there was little or no joyful returning to the One True Church, only apathy and sullenness, tinged with admiration for the 300 Protestants burnt at the Queen’s orders.

Mary Tudor was careful to make no attempt to return Catholic loot to its proper owners, since no sane politician could even contemplate doing so. And in any case, many of the greedy looters and their descendants were – in their better moments – sincere Protestants, e.g. the Cromwell family, from whom (on his mother’s side) was descended the Oliver Williams who was Lord Protector of England and military despot over Britain and Ireland in the mid-17th century.

kentgeordie

I’m only an amateur historian but:
1. I am amazed at your claim that the beneficiaries of the redistribution of monastic wealth were by a convenient coincidence also fervent protestants; 2. I would like to see your evidence for extensive protestant fervour; 3. Unlike your good self, Duffy is far from clear that the protestant martyrs were burnt ‘at the Queen’s orders'; 4. I see you make no mention of the Pilgrimage of Grace during the reign of Henry, or the Northern Rising during the reign of Elizabeth.

theroadmaster

It was still a top-down imposition and we can simplistically pass off the success of protestantism in part to a loose attachment to the “Old Faith” on the part of the general populace. One has to consider such reactions as the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536 to the radical and destructive nature of Henry VIII’s usurpation of the leadership of the English church. This northern rebellion brought 40,000 men in to the field under the leadership of Robert Aske and it was so successful that Henry was forced to sue for peace. But he then went back on his word and arrested the leaders( including Robert Aske)and had them executed.

Goldsmithexile1960 .

right…its just as amusing witnessing papists squirm and dodge trying to justify the existence of their repulsive, inane and dangerously useless idol statues

Goldsmithexile1960 .

It may well have been “the language of choice for many of the civilized peoples of Europe to encode law, literature and music”
But (in case your memory is a bit short) that was 600 or 700 years ago. No one uses it as a live language any more, except those in the catholic religious organisation…And any way WHY the langwidge of “choice”? More like the bishops of rome wanted to impose it on the rest of europe, still imagining themselves caesars.

tolpuddle1

Well, those who looted the monasteries certainly weren’t fervent Catholics ! No one is merely evil; Thomas Cromwell was a pirate and a thug, yet had sincere Protestant leanings. The Bolsheviks were even worse people, yet sincerely believed (even to martyrdom) in their weird heresy.

Mary Tudor was almost overthrown by the protestant-nationalist Wyatt’s Rebellion – would have been but for her personal courage.
The Catholic rebellions were generally in out-of-the-way places like Devon and the North, whereas Protestantism (like the victorious Puritans later) had a firm grip on popular sentiment in London and the East generally. Moreover, the Catholic rebellions were as much protests against greedy landlords enclosing the lands of the poor as they were about religion.

Mary Tudor – a Tory landowner first, a Catholic second – had no time for the grievances of the Poor, and without the Poor, the Catholic cause was doomed; the Church needs the poor and ignorant, whereas it’s the World that needs the rich and clever.

That Mary Tudor was the mainspring of the policy of burning Protestants (despite Duffy’s special pleading to the contrary) has never been doubted at the time or since; she continued the policy to the end of her reign, against the advice of her counsellors. Though personally kind, she was fanatical – crazed and embittered by her (and her mother’s) misfortunes and held back from suicide solely by her religious faith. I read that her father’s bones have disappeared and are believed to have been burnt on her orders.

Her unfaithful husband Philip of Spain also advised her to stop the burnings, but later repeated her mistake in the Low Countries; which is why Holland, like England are Protestant to this day.

tolpuddle1

Bullies like the Eighth Henry are as prudent and shrewd as they are detestable. Bearing in mind what he had done, it’s amazing that the whole of England didn’t go up in flames. But it didn’t, it remained generally calm, and he had a free hand to suppress powerful, but localised, disturbances, then simply trimmed his sails in a a slightly more Catholic direction.

theroadmaster

You make some meritorious points and it has certainly been educative and interesting conversing with you, tolpuddle1 on the topic of the English Reformation.

kentgeordie

Agreed. But what I would like to know is this: what proportion of the people of England were convinced protestants in 1535? 1550? 1580?
Tolpuddle suggests a high figure. My surmise is under 10%, or if you like, lower than the % of convinced Christians in England or France today.

theroadmaster

It might have been 600-700 years ago in the historical memory according to you since Latin was dominant in Europe but the foundational importance of this great Classical language is still very much with us. One has only to examine the linguistic and cultural inheritance of Europe to see this. Latin is used by a broad range of cultural and professional interests in society besides the Catholic Church. Latin terminology is very prominent in the Legal and Medical fields in the western world. So you see this “langwidge” as you prefer to misspell it is pretty much the root of a lot of our civilization.

theroadmaster

Your figure of 10%realistically captures the hard cor e of protestant adherents(particularly around East Anglia), but then you have huge swathes of people throughout England who were not so convinced but complied in the face of what seemed like a fait accompli. The sheer brutality of the public policies pursued by Henry e.g. destruction of the monasteries and the vengeance meted out to the those who rebelled, cowed a lot of people. Elizabeth showed equal ferocity in her response to Catholic-inspired rebellions against her throne but overall her policies seemed more nuanced than her father’s.

kentgeordie

My guesstimate is not 10% but under 10%, and I would value a judgment more informed than my own.
I take issue with Tolpuddle’s picture of a weak decadent Catholic population being replaced by a numerous vigorous protestantism.
And of course, trolls aside, participants in these columns will see Catholicism, for all its manifest faults as the truth of God, and protestantism, whatever the personal qualities of its adherents, not as a legitimate alternative view, but a deficiency.

Goldsmithexile1960 .

Their is no such thing as miss spellynge, any more than their is queeynes Englyshe

Fer gawds sake, lighten up-you sound like John Major, with his “common european heritage” claptrap. We all know what europe has had in common in past eras, and it didnt do anyone any good. No one needs to speeke latin any more-that is, apart from those-namely romanists-whose history and culture was derived from it, and who want to ensure that it survyves. I guess a religious ritual performed in a foreign dead langwidge maybe lends it a sense of theatrical mystery or gravitas?
“our civilisation” ?? Speak for yourself mate. Anglo saxon culture-Trial by jury, fair prosecution/defence, innocent till proven guilty, public leaders and officials made accountable to their electorate and bad ones democratically removed…is way ahead of your latino romano-bwitish continental version-the one that the eu is based on and which is steadily being imposed in modern Bwitain, with its emphasis on arbitrary authoritarianism and unnacountable centralised powers. The roman version fears and mistrusts the power of the citizens, certainly doesnt consider them worthy of playing any role in their own government. Just expects them to be supine and meek and willing to do as they are told by a powerful despotic tyrant. .That explains why the Bwitish people are so mistrustful of continental despotism, which is what the eu is-it goes totally against Anglo Saxon iinstincts and is precisely why the social scientists have worked so hard and tirelessly to undermine and destroy these very precious British institutions, and why the British are uncomfortable in being pushed shoved and cajoled in that eusr direction….

Goldsmithexile1960 .

I am not a troll, just a non romanist christian-and I do not see catholicism as the truth of God, rather as the exact opposite to it.

Goldsmithexile1960 .

what is reformation sunday?

kentgeordie

So let us avoid sterile polemic and wish each other well.
But I do wonder why so many non-Catholics inhabit this zone. I have no desire to visit blogs on the Church Times or Jewish Chronicle

The “little England” streak is certainly coming out in you in the grand tradition of anti-European and anti-immigrant ideologues in the past and present. It betrays a very narrow and distorted viewpoint concerning Europe as if the EU and it’s legislative bodes were the sum total of all that continent stood for for in relation to these islands. I agree that there are aspects of the EU like it’s policy-making which leave a lot to be desired but it has provided peace and stability to our continent for over 50 years or more . The EU needs to listen more to it’s citizens with regards to their local concerns but improvement can only happen within the system by making more use of democratic processes which empower citizens e.g online petitions and social movements which lobby for change.
You use the word “Romanists” pejoratively as code for Catholics and more explicitly for those who are pro-European and seem to equate one with the other. Catholicism is as much an integral part of Britain(Bwitain!! whatever version of the name floats your boat) as any other religious belief and had deeper and longer roots than many having existed for a millennium there before the reformation. As for the Romans, they gave you your common law, paved roads,sanitation, public heated baths,Aqueducts, public roads, Literature, Latin of course etc. etc. The list is rather exhaustive but that will do for now.

Before the reformation broke the link with Rome in the 16th century, England was an integral part of a European civilization in a deep social, religious and political sense and thus was part of a greater whole and not some fragment looking in from the outside. Now the latter seems to be more the case.

Goldsmithexile1960 .

I’d much rather be, as you seem to pejoaritively suggest, a “little englander” than a deluded utopian one world globalist. There is nothing wrong with being English, and proud of its history and institutions, even if modern liberal minded people find that unnacceptable, and have spent inordinate amounts of time and money instructing us we should rather be ashamed to be English..

You need to expand your roman accomplisments list a bit, the romans also gave us aggressive relentless militarism, imperialism, personality cults, colonialism, slavery, exploitation of natural resources, sexual perversion, death-as-entertainment, obsessive astrology….. They were and still are the model for fascist dictator types. Hitler built nice fast autobahn roads, it doesnt justify him as a national leader

And if the eu isnt a jesuit run organisation that wants to re establish catholicism as the official legal religion in europe, why is the eu flag so explicitly catholicised? 12 stars in a circle on a blue background…? catholicism (specifically, mary-ism, the mass) is a foreign import when it was agreed at Whitby, and it still is today. catholicism is the roman (italian religion) not the English or British religion

“Before the reformation broke the link with Rome in the 16th century,
England was an integral part of a European civilization in a deep
social, religious and political sense and thus was part of a greater
whole and not some fragment looking in from the outside. Now the latter
seems to be more the case.”

You are now beginning to sound like that “ascent of man” bronowski bloke. You are forgetting that european kings and princes were constantly at war, fighting over land and gold, and made sport of torturing and burning people, the vast majority of whom were maintained as illiterate peasants, and were compelled to be members of the papist church-dependent as it was on myths, superstitions and error-wether they liked it or not….

theroadmaster

Well there is no harm in loving one’s country up to a point, but it is a different thing when one looks with disdain at other countries and think that somehow their inhabitants are of inferior stock and one’s shores has to be protected from them. Then we are into BNP territory and don’t worry I’m not accusing you of any involvement with that lot. But of course when one tells them that there is no such reality as pure British stock and that Britain has seen many invasions from the continent of Europe of all places and intermingling of different ethnicities, they don’t want to reckon with it. It puts the kibosh on their racial theories.

Well certainly the Romans had their dark side and left some undesirable practices behind but undoubtedly they left behind their genius in the form of the many positive legacies which I have already listed for you. Britain is still benefiting from them

Your point about the EU being a “jesuit run conspiracy” is plain barmy and unhistorical nonsense. It is the stuff which the “tinfoil hat” brigade and extreme protestant fundamentalists dream up to add to their growing conspiracy list. The twelve stars in a blue circle has Catholic associations but don’t worry it does not signal an invasion of Britain by Catholic led forces anytime soon. You need to take a chill-pill and get rid of this crazy conspiratorial clap-trap. The Mass was not agreed at Whitby and this is just plain wrong in historical terms. The Mass has always existed in the Church in these Islands from it’s earliest foundations during the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon times
.
Of course Europe seen many disputes between Emperors, kings and the pope over the millennia but this did not prevent English monarchs from seeing themselves as being part of a diverse and Christian continent with the Pope as their spiritual leader. England then had influence in Europe and was the centre of European affairs but with the break from Rome instigated by Henry VIII, the myth was then created of merry ole England as a bastion of protestant righteousness standing up to cruel and tyrannous Catholic powers in Europe. Of course this misses out the inconvenient dark episodes such as the heartless and vindictive Tudor persecution and slaughter of many thousands of innocent Catholics in Ireland and Britain.

The Catholic Church has always been the repository of the true Faith since Apostolic times and did not need myths and superstitions to keep the faithful. The latter is more of the usual protestant revisionism in relation to the medieval period which is a lot more complicated than the simplistic and inaccurate depictions of anti-Catholic apologists. The medieval era saw the flowering of the great Catholic intellectual tradition founded on a Christian Faith tempered by rational reflection which came to dominate the university system founded by Catholic patronage across the Europe of this time. One of the all-time great icons of Catholic Theology and indeed Philosophy in general grew up in the Medieval period, namely St Thomas Aquinas(1225-1274)

Goldsmithexile1960 .

“Your point about the EU being a “jesuit run conspiracy” is plain barmy
and unhistorical nonsense.”

Why is it that just about every important (and of course unelected) official is catholic, often jesuit trained?

“England then had influence in Europe and was the centre of European affairs”

England and the rest of Britain didnt have any real power and influence in europe-or the rest of the world-until after its decisive break with popery in the 1500’s. We became a highly successful seafaring and trading nation, able and willing to defend our interests despite the meddling interference of those who would return the nation to the roman religion again. It even took us into the nightmare of a civille warre. I would go so far as to say that Britain began to lose its empire at the same time as it relaxed its restrictions on catholics in Britain, as well as rejecting sound Biblical teaching in favour of higher (humanist) cwiticism. Its been a downward slide ever since.
I mean what did you expect the English monarch to do, when the pope excommunicates them, then orders every catholic to do their godly duty in whatever they could to unseat them from the throne (ie incitement-again from abroad-to treason)? Then sends wave upon wave of priests from abroad (more meddling and interference from the continent) to defy the English law and perform the mass? Did they think they would be welcomed with open arms?

“The Catholic Church has always been the repository of the true Faith
since Apostolic times and did not need myths and superstitions to keep
the faithful.”
Well, thats just predictable roman rheoric-repeat often and forcefully enough in a vaccuum of ignorance-and eventually people will capitulate and accept it as the truth……
It has to be said the catholic authorities additionally made good use of torture and execution to make sure no one disobeyed them. Also it greatly helped that the ordinary people were unable to read or write, the services were conducted in that awful dead language-latin, no bibles in English were available for many years…..

I am fully aware that Britain has a long history of racial mixture. But the immigration we have experienced since 1997 is far more significant than in past times, because of the huge numbers involved, the rapidity of it, and the fact that it was planned deliberately to destabilise Britain culturally and economically. I have no complaint with competent industrious people who want to come here to live and work, because they respect and value British cultural institutions, and wish to be a part of that. I do object when an immigrant comes here with no desire whatsoever to assimilate (as past waves of immigrants usually have eg Jews from Eastern Europe and Russia around 110 years ago) often not even with any desire to learn the English langwidghe, rather sponge like leaches and create small versions of the places they left behind, in their roles as “economic migrants” I am not concerned with theories of British of English racial purity, we can agree, they are non existent. This may also be one reason why English (and not latin) is the universal language these days? But I am concerned about British-ness, as I mentioned earlier-trial by jury, balanced prosecution and defence, innocent until proven guilty, political leaders installed (and unfit ones removed) by democratic rather than bloodshedding means. A free conscience, a free press, free speech, small government, low taxes, free enterprise, fair days pay for a fair days work, accurate weights and measures, personal freedom balanced with civic responsibilty, robust debate, a church not shackled to a political and economic agenda (as the catholic one always is); respect for property, marriage, inheritances etc…..I think all those are worth preserving. If that makes me a little englander, its tough.

Toshi quaraba

Merle D’Aubigne (French 19th century historian) in his two volumes History of the Reformation in England (a very well documented Protestant work) clearly states that Henry VIII was not a Protestant as he had ordered masses to be said for him for the time after his death. In the same books you can historically trace that the Reformation in England did really start with the young Edward. Henry VIII manipulated the wishes of the reformers to suit his own interests and killed them when he could not. A quick reading of the Act of the Six Articles of 1539 will clearly show that Henry VIII was a Catholic and not a Protestant at all. You can google the Six Articles and read them online and then compare them with the 39 articles of the CofE and you will definitely see the major doctrinal differences between Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Henry VIII wanted a Catholic Church with a King (the old medieval wishes of French Catholicism). Many Protestants were martyred under Henry VIII even after the dissolution of monasteries. He had Anabaptists perish in the cold winter ouside Oxford and still persecuted the remnants of the Lollards.

MIKE

From the Vatican web site –

” The schism of a “Church of England” detached from the Successor of Peter came about not because of doctrinal differences, but because the Pope, out of obedience to the sayings of Jesus, could not accommodate the demands of King Henry VIII for the dissolution of his marriage.”

When you want to know Catholic Church history, you might want to considering reviewing Church documents.

MIKE

Henry VIII was excommunicated from the Catholic Church due to his marriages.
” Besides his six other marriages, Henry VIII is known for his role in the separation of the Church of England from the pope and the Roman Catholic Church.
His struggles with Rome led to the separation of the Church of England from papal authority, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, and his own establishment as the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
Yet he remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings, even after his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church. ”

HVIII was a faithful Catholic, except when ‘Catholic theological teachings’ stood in the way of his perceived interests.
The Catholic Church in England would not have been destroyed without his wickedness.